I'm still writing, so this may not be complete.

David Lipscomb's "Civil Government" is much more thoughtful and insightful than I expected, and an easy read. I disagree with the man but have to respect his thinking in this book.
John Howard Yoder's "The Politics of Jesus." This is a must read whether or not you're interested in pacifism.
Lee C. Camp, "Mere Discipleship"
Stanley Hauerwas and Will Willemon, "Resident Aliens." Brilliant book — should be required reading even though I disagree with the conclusions re pacifism.
Stanley Hauerwas, "Brazos Theological Commentary on Matthew."
D. A. Carson, "Expositor's Commentary on Matthew" (excellent commentary — you can pick it up and just read it front to back)
Scot McKnight, "The Blue Parakeet" (says nothing about pacifism but teaches us how to read the Bible)
John Howard Yoder, "Body Politics"
Richard Hughes, "Reclaiming a Heritage"
Douglas Foster, ed., "American Origins of Churches of Christ"
The New International and Tyndale commentaries on Matthew and Luke and maybe some other books. I walk back and forth to the commentary shelves a lot.

That's probably not complete, but it's what I can remember at 9 pm.

Now, you should notice that I'm big fan of several books that I disagree with on pacifism. Yoder, Hauerwas, and Camp are good reads regardless of your position. I think I've read "Resident Aliens" three or four times.

Just now starting to work through this series. Before listing your observations, you said:
"But it seems to be the time. I’ve got the books. I just need to see whether I agree with them."

Wondering if you could post a bibliography of your sources for this series.

Thanks,
Brian B.

–Guy

Also, figures of speech doesn't work in Eph 6, because he's drawing a clear picture of spiritual warfare (the shield protecting us from the fiery darts of the devil) even if 'the only offensive weapon in our arsenal is the Word of God itself' as the old cliche goes. Through the imagery he uses, Paul clearly WANTS his readers to picture fending off the attacks of the devil (i.e., being in combat) even if the attack is only spiritual.

Am I off-base? BTW, I appreciate you taking the time to respond to me. I'm thankful for the insights of someone who's struggled with this longer than I've been alive (only 32). Have a great day!

What's your take on Paul 'peppering his speech' with 'militaristic terminolgy' on occasion (i.e., Phil 2:25; 2 Tim 2:1ff; Eph 6:10ff, etc.)? I realize his use of those terms doesn't mean he supports what they represent, but it seems odd to me that he would associate those kinds of words with Christians/Christianity if he felt they represented un-Christian behaviors. What I mean is that if he's just trying to get across ideals like discipline or perseverence for instance, why not just stick to the athletic analogies he uses elsewhere? (Maybe this falls under the category of the 'unjust steward' parable as someone else has mentioned elsewhere in the comments section, but this feels different to me).

I'm not coming down on either side of this yet. I've obviously heard of pacifism, but I've never studied it or honestly given it much thought. I'd just like to know your opinions so that I can begin to form my own. Thanks.